Madoff Renounces Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery in the Clawback Fight
New York, October 17, 2016 – Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee of the liquidating Bernie Madoff’s fraudulent investment firm, challenged a discovery request in a New York bankruptcy court lawsuit that sought to recover $1.5 million from the former Madoff customers. The trustee alleged that the defendant’s attorney is resorting to unprofessional personal attacks against him. Further, the trustee argued that the discovery conduct had no basis in fact and did not reflect a good faith effort to investigate factual matters as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g). The trustee stated that it took an enormous and unprecedented effort to transparently make available all of the underlying materials supporting the determination that Madoff operated the largest and longest running financial fraud in the modern history. Despite that, the defendants’ counsel ignored the evidence provided by the trustee and served the trustee in over 80 cases, 18 discovery requests demanding burdensome interrogatory responses concerning unrelated subjects and complex investigations into the evidence previously furnished.
The case is Picard v. Trust U/Art Fourth O/W/O Israel Wilenitz, case number 10-04995. The bankruptcy case is Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC et al., case number 1:08-ap-01789, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
Delaware – Proper Date for Determining a Defendant’s Secured Status Under Section 547(b)(5) is the Petition Date and Not the Transfer Date
December 5, 2017, Delaware — Debtor Simplexity, LLC and its affiliates filed petitions for relief…Read More
Intraday Overdrafts by Banks Do Not Give Rise to an Antecedent Debt
Sarachek v. Luana Sav. Bank (In re Agriprocessors, Inc.), No. 15-CV-1015-LRR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS…Read More
A Transfer of a Valueless Asset is Not a Fraudulent Conveyance Under §548
Yip v. Connedx Corp. (In re Gomez), Nos. 13-22713-BKC-AJC, 14-1574-BKC-AJC-A, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 3955 (U.S….Read More
Utah Court Did Not Allow a Creditor to Retain the Funds He Invested With a Non-Debtor in a Ponzi Scheme, Even When the Non-Debtor was Operating the Debtor’s Ponzi Scheme
Gillman v. Russell (In re Twin Peaks Fin. Servs.) No. 2:15-cv-00167-DN, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS…Read More